Mike Gallagher wrote an explosive article in the Albuquerque Journal yesterday, about the firing of U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias.
Apparently Senator Domenici, (St. Pete, as he is known in New Mexico) had long been unhappy with Iglesias’ performance. Originially serving as Iglesias mentor, Domenici became disenchanted with him because Iglesias was not prosecuting enough public corruption cases and was concentrating, instead on illegal immigration. There is no doubt that there is a desert full of corruption in NM and there is a legitimate possibility that Iglesias could have done more to prosecute it. Although, I doubt Domenici was interested in any Republican corruption.
Domenici was apparently so upset about Iglesias not going after Democrats that he tried, more than once, to kick Iglesias up the ladder in to a Washington-based position in the Justice Department. Iglesias preferred to remain in New Mexico, unaware that the offered promotions were a sign of dissatisfaction with his job performance.
In addition to the well-documented phone call that Domenici made to Iglesias prior to his firing – and prior to the 2006 election, Domenici also talked to Alberto Gonzales about firing Iglesias. Gonzales reportedly refused and told Domenici the he would do so only on the orders of the President.
Domenici wasn’t satisfied and, according to the article:
At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush’s senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.
Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.
The hearings this week are bound to prove interesting – especially if the truth somehow happens to come out. It will also be interesting to see if Alberto falls on his sword.
Of course this goes back to Bush. The fact that he simply did what Karl told him to do doesn’t excuse him. Imagine, we’ve been led by a man who let’s his political adviser dictate domestic policy decisions, and his Vice President foreign policy decisions.
I’m not sure exactly it is that he decides all by his lonesome, but I sure as hell blame him for all those other decisions.
It doesn’t matter. I’ve been an executive–short period of insanity. No matter how fast you sign those papers on your desk (or have your dog stamp them), no matter what authority you give aides (like inserting language into bills in the middle of the night) you are responsible. Bush wanted to be the decider. He’s the only one who could take responsibility for this and he must.
I really hope bush’s childishly inane statement about him being ‘The Decider’ comes back to haunt him over and over again.
I have all kinds of scenarios in my head about bush in a docket somewhere with prosecutors addressing him as ‘Mr. Decider’, you say now you DIDN’T do any Deciding? Well which is it Mr. Decider are you or are you not the Decider…I want that self imposed title thrown in his face over and over and over again.
I share your fantasy…it could last much longer than impeachment.
lying! He is desperate to keep that job and will do what he needs to do to keep it except for throwing Bush or Rove under the bush – just like his comrade in arms Libby. Does anybody know how it works if someone lies to congress? Does DoJ prosecute it? I belief that there was one other case of a person lying to congress and pleading guily. It didn’t go to trial. (Saffian??)